Are most believers really atheists?

[Sophocles]

Such an interesting idea!

It does seem like Ranked Choice Voting gets to a more accurate picture of the true desire of the electorate. I wonder if there is similar application in opinion polling? I'm certainly someone who would have listed "atheist" as my second choice after "Mormon" when I was a believer.

There is also something human about hating those closest to us. Look at how many Americans claim they would prefer to be ruled by an enemy of America (like Putin) than by an American of the wrong political stripe.

[Gadianton]

to infer much about what exactly Pascal meant, beyond the basic notion of considering belief as a game move

That's all very possible, I'm taking it as Evangelical apologists present it. I wouldn't be surprised if history doesn't support apologetic license.

I think this view may represent a Mormon background. Most if not all religions do present themselves as being more right than other religions, but Mormonism is on the far end of the spectrum for claiming to have, through its living Prophets, direct commandments from God about fine details.

I admit that as much as I've tried otherwise, I see God as locked into fundamentalism. I applaud you and the Rev for your ecumenical spirits; your willingness to see the best in people. I do think your lack of fundamentalist training has colored your interpretation of religiosity in the other direction. You also live in Europe where religion is tradition more than it is real belief. Let me ask you this, if you had to choose between the Mormon God, and no God at all, which would you choose? You'd safely make at least the Terrestrial kingdom and guaranteed a decent eternity. But you'd have to live with the fact that Joseph Smith is a God; possibly DCP also, and out creating millions of worlds.

Catholic teaching is apt to consider a ritual valid if the people involved sincerely intended to perform it correctly.

Do they consider Islamic rituals valid?

As for details, you brought up the point I was going to make later in your post with the controversy over icons, which drove the split between Catholics and Orthodox. I think you are right with the teddy bear example (I've used an apple pie example) on a personal level, but underneath the hood is competition for resources. Holy wars are fought over resources, doctrinal differences are the excuse. If two ministers butt heads in a power struggle over the congregation, small doctrinal differences are leveraged into quite possibly salvation-risking matters.

It hardly makes sense that they would. Many of them emphasise that God is unknowable.

God is a mystery most often when one is caught in a contradiction, or otherwise in a doctrinal tight spot. The Trinity itself is a good example of that, it doesn't make sense, yet it has to hold in order for Jesus to be fully God, and so it's a mystery. That God has said give generously to the minister is clear; that the child died despite the Elders praying is a mystery.

The little differences as you've pointed out can be really serious, and they can be center stage of tremendous riffs, but people can also get over these quickly, depending on the incentives. Two dudes may be taken to violence over a point of doctrine. But if a drop-dead gorgeous woman makes the same point while showing sexual interest, then a guy just might be able to let it go or even convert. The fact that religions fragment so quickly attests to the fact that people must not be as hung up over details as they claim. But at any given instant -- the claim is yet there.

The ability for religions to coexist and a generalized notion of God might be an ecumenical illusion; building on Pascal's game theory would be cooperative games, where it's to the advantage of religions in many cases to get along temporarily, all the while working towards the eventual demise of the other -- competing firms in business may temporarily need each other but ultimately wiping out the competition is preferable.

[Gadianton]

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Hilarious Soph, good to see you and hope you're having a great Smithmas.

[Gadianton]

It makes perfect sense to believe in something firmly while being vague about its details. We do it all the time—literally all the time, because our brains process only a tiny fraction of the information that is in the world.

I don't disagree at all. I may not be explaining very well. I'll try again.

Both Christianity and Islam adopted Aristotle's Prime Mover. I think that qualifies as believing in something very similar while vague on the details. But the Prime Mover isn't necessarily "God". At this point, an atheist could squeak by as one of the group. But now stipulate the Prime Mover is personal, and that rules out the atheist. Christianity and Islam can agree that there is a personal prime mover, but that "personhood" is exactly what connects the being in the abstract to the being of scripture (your details). Christianity and Islam also agree that this personal all-powerful entity has a chosen people who will have a holy structure residing on the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. That's the zero-sum element. Once the prime mover becomes personal, it's a zero-sum game, and somebody has to lose. Take away the zero-sum element, the personal nature drops, and the entity is no longer "God". That is, unless you can show God is usually understood as personal without the zero-sum element. But historically, that's totally untenable I think, and you can also be wrong. Once a God is personal, it's quite possible or even believable that he has interests on this planet that amount to benefiting one or more groups at the expense of other groups. Unless he's your guy, God is a threat.

----

There IS some ambiguity in my question. Am I asking what believers want in a God, or what they believe to be the reality of God? In my cynicism, I think it's the same question. As a physicist, you might believe in the big rip, but you may not want the big rip. You may totally hate the big rip. I'm not sure I've ever met a believer who has said they believe God is the Mormon God based on the cold facts, but that they detest the Mormon God. What a person wants personally from God, and the facts about God are the same thing. Have you ever conceived of God as someone you substantially disagree with, but are forced to acknowledge based on all the data? God, in some way, is the instantiation of personal interest for any and all believers, and those needs conflict. Even if you believe God does not benefit anyone at another's expense, most people believe otherwise. If God helps me find my car keys, then that means I made it to the job interview, ant that other guy who would have got because I didn't show now goes hungry.

[huckelberry]

It makes perfect sense to believe in something firmly while being vague about its details. We do it all the time—literally all the time, because our brains process only a tiny fraction of the information that is in the world.

I don't disagree at all. I may not be explaining very well. I'll try again.

Both Christianity and Islam adopted Aristotle's Prime Mover. I think that qualifies as believing in something very similar while vague on the details. But the Prime Mover isn't necessarily "God". At this point, an atheist could squeak by as one of the group. But now stipulate the Prime Mover is personal, and that rules out the atheist. Christianity and Islam can agree that there is a personal prime mover, but that "personhood" is exactly what connects the being in the abstract to the being of scripture (your details). Christianity and Islam also agree that this personal all-powerful entity has a chosen people who will have a holy structure residing on the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. That's the zero-sum element. Once the prime mover becomes personal, it's a zero-sum game, and somebody has to lose. Take away the zero-sum element, the personal nature drops, and the entity is no longer "God". That is, unless you can show God is usually understood as personal without the zero-sum element. But historically, that's totally untenable I think, and you can also be wrong. Once a God is personal, it's quite possible or even believable that he has interests on this planet that amount to benefiting one or more groups at the expense of other groups. Unless he's your guy, God is a threat.

----

There IS some ambiguity in my question. Am I asking what believers want in a God, or what they believe to be the reality of God? In my cynicism, I think it's the same question. As a physicist, you might believe in the big rip, but you may not want the big rip. You may totally hate the big rip. I'm not sure I've ever met a believer who has said they believe God is the Mormon God based on the cold facts, but that they detest the Mormon God. What a person wants personally from God, and the facts about God are the same thing. Have you ever conceived of God as someone you substantially disagree with, but are forced to acknowledge based on all the data? God, in some way, is the instantiation of personal interest for any and all believers, and those needs conflict. Even if you believe God does not benefit anyone at another's expense, most people believe otherwise. If God helps me find my car keys, then that means I made it to the job interview, ant that other guy who would have got because I didn't show now goes hungry.

Gadianton, Small correction, the other fellow that would have got the job went ahead a found a better job. life is not a black white win loose but a cooperation building which can benefit many, potentially all.

There is a movement in religion to leave the our side wins view for a mutual benefit view, see the beatitudes.

Gadianton despite my inclination to disagree with you on these matters I find your view interesting. You likely see deeper into fundamentalism than I am capable of. I have never really been close to much fundamentalism. I have attended a few services of that sort and found them less than pleasant. I remember a funeral lead by a fundamentalist preacher who had an astonishing appreciation for his own words. Those words went on and on and on. I grew so impatient I half expected the dead man to get up and walk out.